State of W.Va. ex rel. J.E.H.G. v. Hon. Todd Kaufman, 16-0931

Background

Infant J.E.H.G. born March 2016; DHHR filed emergency abuse & neglect petition and removed the child due to mother's history and prenatal methamphetamine use.
Respondent Mother (T.H.) has ~20 years of DHHR involvement, ten prior terminations or relinquishments of parental rights, history of severe mental illness and substance abuse.
Mother stipulated to abuse/neglect at adjudication; circuit court entered adjudicatory order May 31, 2016.
Mother requested a six-month post-adjudicatory improvement period; DHHR did not oppose, guardian ad litem objected. Circuit court granted the six-month improvement period (Sept. 26, 2016) with services and visitation terms.
Petitioner (through guardian ad litem) sought writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court to prevent enforcement of the improvement-period order, arguing the court failed to require mother to meet the statutory clear-and-convincing threshold and failed to protect the child’s best interests.
Supreme Court granted the writ: held circuit court erred as a matter of law under W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(2)(B), terminated the improvement period, and remanded for dispositional hearing to protect the child’s prompt permanency.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondents’ Argument	Held
Whether circuit court properly granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period	Mother failed to meet statutory burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence she was likely to fully participate and correct conditions	Circuit court acted within discretion to grant improvement period; DHHR initially did not oppose	Court held grant was clear legal error: mother did not meet §49-4-610(2)(B) threshold and court failed to require on-the-record showing
Whether failure to require statutory showing prejudices child and warrants prohibition	Delaying permanency causes irremediable prejudice to infant; prohibition appropriate because interlocutory relief inadequate	Respondents emphasized discretionary nature of improvement periods and services goal	Court granted prohibition, emphasizing child’s best interests and risk of harm from delay
Whether circuit court considered child’s best interests sufficiently before granting improvement period	Court ignored child’s need for prompt permanency given mother’s lengthy history of unsuccessful services	Respondents argued services and visitation promoted reunification where possible	Court found best-interests analysis inadequate and that delaying permanency was contrary to child’s welfare
Whether prior patterns of abuse/neglect negate requirement to award improvement period	Petitioner argued repeated failures and prior terminations justified denying improvement period	Respondents argued each case merits individualized discretion	Court held established precedent permits denial where parent cannot demonstrate likely correction of conditions

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996) (factors for issuing writ of prohibition when tribunal exceeds legitimate powers)
State ex rel. Amy M. v. Kaufman, 196 W.Va. 251, 470 S.E.2d 205 (1996) (prohibition may be appropriate in child abuse/neglect cases where appeal is inadequate)
In re Carlita B., 185 W.Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991) (improvement periods must be meaningful, not mere passage of time)
In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (2000) (court need not award improvement period when parent cannot demonstrate ability to correct conditions)
In Matter of Brian D., 194 W.Va. 623, 461 S.E.2d 129 (1995) (children’s rights and welfare are paramount)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (primary goal is child health and welfare over parental rights)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (courts need not pursue speculative parental improvement, especially for very young children)
In re Willis, 157 W.Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973) (welfare of infant guides custody decisions)